@Bryan - Correct, everything is still per queue, just with that convenience
feature.
Totally agree with @Salvatore too. I hadn't even thought of nested process
groups.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 10:14 PM Salvatore wrote:
> #2 would definitely be convenient. Maybe also include an option whether to
#2 would definitely be convenient. Maybe also include an option whether to
recurse down through nested process groups, or just apply to the selected
process group.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 at 06:05, Bryan Bende wrote:
> Makes sense. For # 2, it is still per queue with an "Apply All"
> convenience rig
Makes sense. For # 2, it is still per queue with an "Apply All"
convenience right? Just trying to differentiate with prioritizing
across all queues.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 3:22 PM Ryan Hendrickson
wrote:
>
> I see two things as particularly useful...
>
> 1) Default Prioritizer for new Relations
I see two things as particularly useful...
1) Default Prioritizer for new Relationships (Bound to a process group,
similar to how the "Default FlowFile Expiration" can be changed).
2) Applying a prioritizer to an entire Process Group as a one-time action.
Some background... I'm hand-converting
I think there are two different concepts here... The original
discussion is just about default settings for new connections. The
idea in NIFI-6831 is about prioritizing data across multiple queues,
either for all of nifi or within a given process group.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 1:13 PM Mark Bean
We experimented with the idea of a custom "Global Prioritizer". One of the
problems with this approach is that it ran the risk of breaking the
multi-tenancy philosophy. If there were a truly global priority, it would
affect all flows, each may have different priority rules. However, if this
could b
I just went to the config button in my process group, hoping to set all
relationships in there to priority first Lots of right clicking &
dragging instead.
+1 for an approach like that.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 11:44 AM Joe Witt wrote:
> Hello
>
> Certainly the spirit of this is a good idea.
Hello
Certainly the spirit of this is a good idea. Would likely need to approach
it at a more flow/process group centric level.
Thanks
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 8:34 AM Ryan Hendrickson <
ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This would be very helpful.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at
This would be very helpful.
Ryan
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 4:51 PM Salvatore Foss
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do you see much value in being able to specify an instance-wide (or
> cluster-wide) default prioritizer for all connections that do not have one
> manually set?
>
> Along with the the following prop
